I am aware that I often write more words than my readers will read. That may have happened this morning. So, I am taking a little bit of this morning’s post and turning it into a separate post all of its own. In the discussion of divorce, this passage is key.
God Hates Divorce? – Malachi 2:16
Malachi 2:16 has become a formative verse for many who wish to enter a blanket condemnation of divorce. The statement made in this verse couldn’t be any clearer. “I hate divorce.” If God hates divorce, it must be sin, right? One major commentator says that this passage is the foundation for a biblical view of divorce.
I am going to argue that, in the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” The popular translation is a mistranslation that puts words in God’s mouth that he did not say.
Of course, divorce was not part of God’s original intent and is always evidence of sin on one side or both participants in the marriage. God’s gift to humanity – companionship, partnership and pleasure as a man and a woman are united as one – has been rejected. That which God has made into one flesh is now being amputated into two – an act of spiritual violence. No biblical observer would argue that God does not hates sin and its consequences.
But the problem here is simple. The statement in this passage, “God hates divorce” is not in the original text. It is an unfortunate translation and you will not find the phrase in most newer translations.
Translations
The King James version may have gotten the ball rolling with its third person translation:
“For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away…”
Other translations followed this, but turned the statement into a first person affirmation.
“For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.” NASB95
“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. NIV84
But by the time the NIV2011 was published, a newer view of this passage had taken hold.
The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard°, and do not be unfaithful. NIV2011
And my favorite translation has also adopted that reading.
For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.
The divorce in this passage was a particularly heinous form of divorce. Men were leaving their Israelites wives and marrying Canaanite women. Not only were they leaving the wives of their youth, but they were joining to women who would lead them into idolatry. It was the pattern Israel had followed in the period of the Judges and Kings and God did not want that to happen again. Israelite men were not only divorcing their wives, but were flirting again with the idolatry that brought such destruction on the people. Even if the traditional view of this passage is correct, it is questionable whether God’s condemnation of this specific type of divorce would serve as a universal principle.
But, is the traditional interpretation correct?
Which translation is correct?
The quote, “I hate divorce” is a bad translation of what the original Hebrew said. The newer translations have given what is probably a better rendering of the verse.
While I was never what could be called a Hebrew scholar, I took three years of the language long ago. From what understanding I have left after all these years, here is what seems clear to me.
The key here is the subject of the verb “hate.” Does God hate or does the verb refer to someone else? It seems clear that God is not the subject of the verb. It is not God who hates divorce in this passage, but a man who hates and subsequently divorces his wife. Let us examine this verse in brief detail.
After the opening conjunction, the verse throws three verbs together in a row. Literally, it says “For he hates to divorce, says the Lord.” The verbs “hate” and “divorce” mostly likely identify the man who is the subject of the main clause later in the verse, “covers his garment with violence.” In the context, it probably means,
“For he who hates (his wife) to (the point that he) divorce(s) (her), says the Lord, covers his garment with violence…”
The first verb, “hates” is a different verb than was used in Malachi 1:3 (Esau I hated). This verb is more visceral, an emotional disgust. In this context, it refers to a man who treats his wife as if she were refuse, throwing her away in divorce to marry a Canaanite woman.
It is a third person verb, “he hates.” This is key exegetical point. If God is the subject of the verb, and God is speaking, why does He not say, “I hate divorce.” God is not the subject of the verb. The subject is “he.” Who is “he?” The person who despises his wife to whom he committed himself, divorces her and finds a pagan, foreign wife – he is the subject of this verse.
That does not change the fact that God hates the kind of divorce that is going on in this situation, a man leaving his wife for another woman (or vice-versa, I assume). But there is no blanket statement in this verse that governs all our discussions on divorce. It seems that what is arousing the ire of God here is the infidelity of Israelite men. Not only were they leaving their wives, but they would soon be worshiping Canaanite gods. That is the focus of this passage.
So, to summarize, this verse makes it clear that God was angered by Israelite men leaving their wives for pagan, Canaanite women. This buttresses the original intent of marriage: one man and one woman, sharing a lifetime together. But, this verse is not the authoritative, blanket condemnation of all divorce that some have made it out to be.
Why can’t God hate and it be used the way He intended? If God created a man and woman to become “one” within the unseen as He had created, I would think hate would be an appropriate word to use when they chose to end that relationship in sin. Of course, sin has entered to destroy what God had created to be “good” and would naturally have that response from a holy God.
“As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Romans 9:13. This even seems odd but it is God’s response to those He has not chosen. It is hate and nothing more or less. Absolutes are hard for us to deal with sometimes.
By the way, I did read everything in this post.
You get a gold star for reading the post!
Are you saying that this passage is in fact, a blanket condemnation of all divorce?
Absolutely, Dave. A person who is divorced and believes God is true has to believe divorce is condemned by God. I have to say it because it is true, not because of my sin to divorce, but because God is true. That is all that matters. It doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to be true and we have to admit it. To God be the glory.
Well then Bruce H.,
Why did you divorce your wife (BTW, the one you stated God gave you) when she became ill?
cb,
Do you really need an explanation or an excuse to further condemn me? I have neither. Mental illness happened and took me by surprise. I acted in the best way I knew how to help my wife and it didn’t work and I approached it the best way I knew how and it didn’t work. It turned out that we divorced and I waited. There was no response. After a period of time it was obvious that nothing was going to happen. I was in a position I never wanted to be in and began to look elsewhere. I found someone who loved the Lord and began a relationship. It began to work and I chose to go in that direction. I never wanted that but the first wife never changed. It was not an easy decision or a chosen decision. It was a decision I made that was the best of a bad situation, nothing more. I simply do not know what would satisfy you. I am not convinced that God has accepted the situation. That is what I have to live with.
She was sick. If you had died waiting, you should have.
What if she had been burned in a fire beyond human recognition? Would you have stayed?
Dave Miller’s post is about the question of biblical divorce. Your situation is one of abandonment. Those scenarios are not he same.
cb,
Unfortunately, you do not understand mental illness. It has to be classified as an illness or sickness in our society. It is simply a mental issue that man has categorized to fit insurance policy. Mental illness is really not classified as an illness biblically. It has to be dealt with and protecting others is necessary in every decision. Unfortunately, it was not your course in life, it was mine. You will never know what it takes to deal with mental illness and never know how to protect your entire family. I made the decision personally and the result, as far as is presently known, was the better decision even though it was not according to your way or God’s way of dealing with it. It was just a decision I had to make at the moment in time. I have to live with it, not you. Your continued comments are not necessary.
Bruce H.,
That is a lie and an effort on your part to build a strawman. There are people right now reading this blog that know that I know what mental illness is. The problem is, you simply do not know what a man is. The problem is, you live according to a secular worldview and not a biblical worldview.
She was sick. It does not matter what kind of sick. If you would have had to live in a tent on the side of the road next to her house, you should have stayed. She was sick.
BTW, there is nothing heroic or remorseful in this statement you made:
“I am not convinced that God has accepted the situation. That is what I have to live with.”
That is just another example of your self-centered, self-absorbed personality.
cb,
The relationship is over. What is real is what exist now. If you want to continue to condemn there is nothing I can do to change your mind. I have to continue to serve God in the capacity I am in now. If you think I should just drop out of church because of the decisions I have made in the past please say so. If not, provide and explanation or direction you think I should go. That is the bottom line.
Dave,
I would think there is a difference in hate and condemnation. We hate many things in this world but are subject to them. To condemn something would seem to separate ourselves from it. Would God’s hate of something separate Him from it? to condemn it?
“””not . . .a chosen decision!”
That would make it an “unchosen choice,” or “undecided decision,” or perhaps the simplest answer is to admit we make mistakes because we make bad choices.
Why make it something is not as if we can “sin accidentally?”
Confess it and move on seems a better road than “verbal gymnastics” to justify our mistakes. I don’t wish to condemn anybody who has made a mistake, sinned, or otherwise transgressed; but, neither to I want to suggest to another that we are ever forced to make a decision that is not fully God-honoring (assuming one is a believer at the time).
Look folks,
Bad things happen to people. Sometimes life is just plain tough. Sometimes things are just not “fair” (whatever fair is). Sometimes life just plain stinks. But a man, a real man, does not leave his wife if she gets sick. I don’t care what kind of sick it is, you stay. if you have to sleep in the loft or the basement or in another room with the door locked, you stick.
The Bible is clear enough as to what sanctions a biblical divorce, but “sick” ain’t one of ’em.
cb,
You are right. I agree with you completely. I just didn’t do it that way. There is nothing I can change with my decision. What do you suggest? Do I commit suicide? It is something I have to live with and keep on going. That is what I am going to do. I would suggest you consider that people make mistakes even though they know scripture and should continue to preach the truth even though their past lives don’t display it. You seem to be saying that we should give up and quit. I hope not, but what you say speaks so loudly.
You are not going to flip this on me Bruce H.
I am not the one who would give up and quit. You are and you did. No one in his or her right mind could read my comments to you and say I am advocating quitting.
And it is you who mentioned suicide, not me. Of course you would think of such. You are self-centered. Suicide is the ultimate expression of a self-centered, self-absorbed life.
You ask me what I would have you do? OK. I’ll tell you. But remember you asked me.
I would have you to quit lying to yourself and to everybody else to whom you relate your story. I would have you to truly repent of your sin of self-centeredness and cowardly conduct.
I would have you not to come on this thread and condescend to Dave Miller about divorce as if you know what you are talking about because have risen to some kind of higher spiritual elevation.
This post is about the question of biblical divorce, not the abandonment of a sick woman.
I would have you get up out of the dirt, feeling sorry for yourself, and be a man. I would have you love your present wife as Christ loved the Church and be willing to give your life for hers, even if it means dying to yourself and living just for her, even if she become mentally ill, or crippled, or any number of things that could happen to her in this life.
I would have you be a man, a real man. The world has enough panty-waisted sissies parading around calling themselves men, putting their wives on rooftops talking about sex and using them to write co-authored sexual garbage and labeling it as a Christian book. Real men don’t do that.
I would that you truly recognize that you cannot change your history, but you can submit your present and your future to the hands of a Living God and walk by faith seeking to live a biblical lifestyle even if it kills you.
I would have you take up the cross, die to yourself, and follow Jesus no matter the cost, and let the devil take the hindmost parts with the rest of it. That is what I would have you do.
“”Suicide is the ultimate expression of a self-centered, self-absorbed life.””
Wow! Talk about “self-absorbed.” Apparently, you understand suicide perfectly and know what I’ve never seen any other professional profess to know.
I’ve known more than one person that committed suicide. Though you profess to know them better than I do, I’ll simply offer my opinion: suicide came in a moment of human weakness when the sense of loneliness and intense pain shouted so loud they could not hear the voice of hope.
Of course, your position is much simpler and much more clear-cut, black and white, and comprehensive. The only word that doesn’t seem to come to mind is: compassionate.
I respectfully disagree with your pronouncement, though I support 100% your right to pronounce it.
Frank L.,
It is true that suicide comes “in a moment of human weakness when the sense of loneliness and intense pain shouted so loud they could not hear the voice of hope.”
It is also true that “suicide is the ultimate expression of a self-centered, self-absorbed life.”
Also, suicide is never in any way understandable, “clear-cut, black and white, and comprehensive,” but it is the ultimate expression of self-centeredness.
CB–One friend who committed suicide was mentally ill. I guess that qualifies as “self-centered.”
A couple words come to mind when I think of your statement and unequivocal defense of the statement: ill-informed, inconsiderate, prideful.
I’ll give you the last word because there is no way we could ever find common ground in your approach to suicide. I would only hope that someone who has lost a loved one to suicide would not paint all Christians with the same brush you offer.
Frank L.,
Would you not think that suicide in and of itself is a form of at least mental illness? And Frank L., Many of us, if not most of us have lost friends or family to suicide. And many of us, although, most do not admit it, have considered it in a moment of weakness, loneliness, fear, and of course, self-centeredness.
Frank L.,
I am sorry, I messed up on my comment. The first sentence should have been:
Would you not think that suicide in and of itself is a form of, at least, ‘momentary’ mental illness?
“The problem is, you simply do not know what a man is.”
CB, Let me tell you what a real woman is. When I was 11 my dad was diagnosed with ALS. He was already showing drastic symptoms. My mom quit everything she was involved in and tended to him at home. She had a hospital bed put in his study on the ground floor and put a bed in there for her and did not leave his side until he died when I was 14. She never once complained and counted it a joy and told me she was blessed to be a lot younger than him so as to have the wherewithall to do it for the man she loved. And it was not easy. He could not even move a finger.
That was my model for marriage. Not great sex. Not making one happy. Not date night. But real honest to goodness love and sacrifice with joy.
I have a name for it now: Mercy Living.
And that is why you have grit and steel in your craw Lydia. That is why you are not plastic. Your momma was the real deal. She didn’t run. She stuck. Your momma showed you Jesus.
Bingo Dave. My question has always been why would God make a blanket condemnation on something He did Himself with Israel?
Jeremiah 3
8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery
Then He goes on to beg Israel to come back….He would not stay angry forever.
Lydia, I would hope I love my wife that much. I’m pretty sure she loves me that much. Your mother is a hero in my eyes.
There was a time when St. Joseph, the foster-father of Our Lord thought to ‘put Mary away quietly’ because she was with Child and he did not yet understand.
Then the angel came to him.
Our country is rife with divorce. And it is ‘accepted’, because it has pretty well touched all of us one way or another, if not in our own family, then a close friend perhaps . . . people we love and we care about who are not ‘statistics’ to us, but real live people who hurt.
Why can’t we see ‘divorce’ as an evil and not a ‘sin’? There is a difference . . . sin can lead to it, and many times does. I think God hates evil and sin, but this whole thing of hating people, I can’t see because Jesus didn’t hate people.
And turning on people who are divorced? Think of the encounter of our Lord with the woman at the well. He didn’t ‘turn on her’, no.
His way with her was honest and compassionate. He helped her.
Maybe the Church should be more like Him?
The angel came to Joseph and Joseph did not put Mary away. But he might have done it. He ‘had cause’.
Perhaps the Church has a lot more work to do among its own: work that is honest and compassionate. The Church does better being like the angel, effecting reconciliation among troubled spouses;
rather than condemning after the fact of divorce.
Some thoughts.
Anybody – I think I’d like to know what kind of Counciling training in seminary , how much and if any of the Professors or Instructors were Doctors of Psycharitry ; or , is only Spiritual Counciling presented with guidelines so that experience becomes the best teacher and in that vein then , the oldest among you is considered the most knowledgeable – all other things being equal ?
in # 24 – should read ” Medical ” Doctors of Psychiatry. Even spelled it right this time.
It concerns me that a person that “brings up” suicide themselves in a discussion is ” beat up” without being aware of possible consequences – unless the training to predict the outcome is being administered . I don’t possess that knowledge. I forget to use my spell checker in this and previous post – sorry.
I saw that, Jack. And I prayed for everyone who was involved.
Christiane – It was a poor exhibition of professionalism – one too well already known as their lack of training in this area has been obvious. Medical doctors have a guide that reminds them to first do no harm.
Very interesting, David, For me, it was interesting to note that I Cors.7:27, 28 says, “Are you loosed (divorced) from a wife? Seek not a wife, but and if you marry, you have not sinned.” The word for loosed is the term for divorced.
Along another line, surely God hates murder and adultery, and David was guilty of both. Still the Holy Spirit calls him a patriarch and a prophet (Acts 2:29,30). Our problem I think is understanding the forgivenness of God. Is God’s forgiving a blank check on which one can write a new life lived for His glory?
Every sin and failure carries consequences, of course. But to me that is the overriding principle in any biblical view of adultery – God’s transforming and renewing grace.
Lots of discussion here but not much on the original post. I wasn’t aware some of the newer translations had modified the way they were interpreting the verse. Dave, I’m glad you pointed this out and find it interesting and (at least initially) pretty convincing.
Which commentators line up on each side of the interpretive issue? Just out of curiosity.
NAC (Taylor, Clendenon) explore options but seem to rest with the interpretation I mentioned. K&D (as would be expected) stay with the traditional interp. Dockery, in the Holman Concise, takes a very similar view as I have presented here.
Frankly, my commentary selection on Malachi is not astounding. But the general course seems to be that the interpretation I presented is gaining more ground among more modern evangelical scholars. I’m not sure what the history of the interp is.
I appreciate your views on the issue, David. Many are those who suffer due to the church’s insistence upon a legalisitic approach to the subject. God seems to approve of remarriage in this respect, that unless one is gifted with continence, he or she should have a wife or a husband as the case requires. Since I am not acquainted with the interpretation you have presented, I will pass without commenting on it directly. In any case, the help you offer to those who suffer from this problem is duly noted with appreciation and commendation for your openness in seeking to deal with the issue.
This is an important question, asked in a humble and God fearing way. it’s important that we get our understanding of scripture right in this key area. Sorry this thread went down the rabbit hole because I would appreciate an informed discussion on Dave’s question.
With sincere regret, I apologize for taking such a well presented and informative topic and steering it in the wrong direction.
Bruce H – Unless you are guilty of having a conversion with yourself – you’re not ” guilty ” of anything except being human. Seems to me , I recall some others ranted & raved without reservation or guidance thus spuring the conversation which had relevance to the subject off into personal feelings and conclusions . You apologised . Nobody else will . You are ignored not for spurious reasons so much; but , whereas they might have personal experiences with a some form of mental illness – none had any expertise in your situation or if they did they failed to comprehend and became ” tackless ” in trying to relate using the Bible as their sword. Don’t ” pile on ” yourself as other well meaning folks have done. I don’t want to be “pen pals” and don’t have much to offer except understanding. Find somebody with which you can relate face to face – taking all the time outs necessary to think things thru. Drop this here – but do comment on some other subject on this blog as you are equal under God’s eyes to all those here that won’t let it drop – in my humble opinion . S’Long t’ll another post .
Bruce H – I am going to offer you only a suggestion . On T.V. on Sunday at 8 A.M. tune in to Courtney McBath which is recorded . Better at 10:30 & 11:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Google your computer to First Baptist Church of Woodstock GA which by majic is live . Both of these MEN are solid CHRISTIANS. McBath is black and Johnny Hunt is full blooded Indian who not only has moxie but personally understands many facets of life including racism ; yet , knows his own limitations . He and Buford Pusser who married a lady with two children know how to stand up. If Woodstock fits you you might consider contacting them for a church reference in your geographical area . That’s my best idea although you might have a better one. Go for it. 6 :00 P.M. today at Woodstock is still in front of both of us . He hit a “home-run” this morning so again this evening would be unusual – in my humble opinion !
# 38 should read : 9:30 & 11:00 A.M. All else remains unchanged.
Bruce H. and All,
I do not apologize for any of what I have posted related to you Bruce H. Nothing.
Dave Miller posted an excellent article as to the reality of divorce being biblically permissible in some circumstances. Frankly, he is right in what he presented. He did an excellent job.
You come along and refute his post by saying that God hates or condemns all divorce without exception.
When questioned you revealed that you had divorced your first wife due to her being mentally ill, meaning she had gotten sick. (this is the same wife that you said God had given you because she was of the same race)
You had no biblical reason to divorce your wife. Yet, you want to disallow any person to have a biblical reason to divorce a spouse.
You seem to want all people to be as you are–guilty. Misery loves company, right?
Of course, when your hand is called, you garner sympathy from the usual suspects.
Here is the deal Bruce H. There are biblical reasons for divorce. Dave’s presentation of the Malachi passage is right.
The reason you divorced your wife is wrong. You had no biblical grounds to do so. Real men do not abandon sick wives. It really is that simple.
Now, garner all the sympathy you can generate with your feeble excuses. You will still be wrong. And I do not apologize for telling you so. Somebody should have done so long before me.
To all, read the post and the comment thread before you pat this guy on the back. Recently he admitted to being a bigot. Many challenged him on that. One reason I think so many did is because it is not politically correct to be a bigot. Maybe a guy can divorce his sick wife and still be politically correct. I don’t know.
Now, he says he left his wife because she was sick and later married another woman. Of course, this new wife had to fit his racial profile also. if she becomes mentally ill, what will he do? Divorce her also?
Why is it that so many of you will take this guy to task for being a bigot and yet give him a pass because he divorces his sick wife and marries another woman? Maybe it is because he is not Newt Gingrich who many would say is unfit to be president because he divorced his sick wife.
Maybe a guy can divorce his sick wife and still be politically correct. Maybe being politically correct is the new religion and trumps biblical faith. Who knows? Maybe that is why we are in the shape we are in as a culture. Who knows? Nonetheless, I do not apologize for telling Bruce H. he did a rotten thing and he needs to repent, yet there are some people who were right to divorce their spouses. He is not one of them.
cb scott – I specifically remember him writting that his wife divorced him. Maybe at some point he agreed to be a partner. Y
Jack Wolford,
Let’s do it by the numbers.
He did state that. He also stated she had become mentally ill. That means she had an illness that brought her to incompetence.
Yet, he holds her to mental competence for asking for the divorce while using the excuse of mental incompetence as the cause of the divorce.
Think about that for a moment Jack Wolford. Let that sink in.
If that does sink by chance in Jack Wolford, ask yourself this: When is a man accountable to be a man? Is it when things are easy and wonderful? Or is at all times no matter what happens?
Bottom line Jack Wolford; A real man does not abandon his wife because she gets sick. And what bothers me about this with you Jack Wolford; I thought an old school guy like you would know that.
Summary for cb:
1. Dave did write a great and accurate article.
2. God does have the capacity to hate and love simultaneously. He hates all divorce but loves the divorcees. That’s just God.
3. Due to the legal ramifications of our society I filed for divorce to force her to get professional help and she wanted to proceed with it after she finally received medication. Whoever files first always has the courts advantage and that is the premise I chose to take. I had kids that would have been in danger if I dropped the case or if she filed first. That isn’t justification, it is what I chose to do based upon the legal facts.
4. I never said that my divorce was biblical unless you want to lump it in with the woman at the well’s marriage history. I never said it was justified. I also listed the two (2) biblical reasons I understand are acceptable (not justified); unfaithfulness and unbeliever.
5. I have no reason to believe that God didn’t provide my first wife nor my second. It’s done.
6. I chose to date and marry within my own race. Because I made that public and because I am recommending that conviction to my children I am an SBC racist here and no one denies that. There is a flawed understanding of racism here. It leans more toward the world’s idea of Que Sera, Sera than truly loving all races.
7. When my divorce was final early 2003 I dealt with it with my children, my family, my best friend and then God. I have since discussed it with my first wife as best I could and we have forgiven one another. If a person claims to be a Christian they would have taken this same course of action toward repentance and forgiveness. cb, you never asked a question related to this because you pre-judged me. This has been settled for over 7 years now and I am not going to continue beating myself up and apologizing to everyone. That is what people like you are for. I’m pressing on….
8. cb, by speaking to “all” and using your influence to try to turn them against someone, by making them feel that they are immature for taking my side and for them not listening to your wisdom in all of this speaks so loudly about who you really are inside. The statements can stand on their own without your negative influence.
I will never respond to any more condemnation you say to me or about me.
Bruce H.,
I just read your comment on the Paterno post. (Made me want to puke) I have now read this comment. I have read with scrutiny your comments on these divorce posts. I read your comments on the racist post.
Here is my summary or conclusion or whatever you or “all” want to call it.
1). You may not have been reared to understand what makes a boy into a real man.
2). You may well be a delusional narcissist.
3). You many even be a sociopath.
4). But one thing is for sure. You are one sick puppy.
Dear C.B.
You and I go back for quite a ways, so I thought it would be acceptable to share something with you:
I think you make a better minister than a prosecutor.
I mean that.
You are a ‘natural’ for a court of law,
but the Lord has directed you, dear child of God, to a different journey, and here is something to think about along the way. . .
““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off. For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel Luke 15:5 carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off. And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” Ecclesiastes 7:17 for restraint should temper righteousness. For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said: “Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” Matthew 11:28 So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God. Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek; persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others, such as are the teachers of the Novatians, who call themselves pure.”
St. Ambrose
Remember always the way of Our Lord with people. Then good will come.
L’s,
I have been a lot of things. That’s for sure. Many of them not very good things and that’s for sure also.
But something else is also for sure. I have always done my dead level best to take care of the people assigned to my watch no matter the cost before and after my conversion. I have not always been successful, but it was not due to a lack of effort.
Bruce H. was wrong to abandon his wife because she got sick. And it is strange to me that you, of all people, who say so much about making whatever sacrifice is necessary to care for the weak and infirm, take the stand on this that you have. You even quote people like Ambrose and Francis who gave their lives to protecting the weak. Strange stuff to me L’s, just strange.
One more thing L’s. You are on my watch also. So I will never give up praying for you to embrace the biblical gospel. You can take that to the bank.
cb scott – Even tho you use Bruce H’s facts against him – you don’t know all the facts and you should be smart enought to read that into this situation. I’ve got something you can take ” to the bank ” which is you have absolutely no useful insight into this situation . Whether or not someone is “self-centered” has no bearing here and is further evidence you are grasping at straws – for what purpose ? Your purpose is not to salvage or steer this man so that he & his God and anybody else he is concerned about , can get on with it . Peace to You
Jack Wolford,
May I never have the kind of “peace” you are peddling here. I don’t want it.
BTW, if you read the progression of this comment thread, you will see that Bruce H. first stated that his wife demanded the divorce. You tried to call my attention to that several times. Finally, he admitted he was the first to file for divorce. The excuse he gave for it does not hold water. Nonetheless, he did file first. His wife, who, according to him was suffering from mental illness, did continue afterwards? And why not? She knew by then, even in her illness, he had filed first. So maybe you wanted a sick woman to have to beg the guys who was supposed to care for her no matter what to not leave her? Yeah. OK have it as you like it.
Lastly, you are right Jack Wolford, I did use the facts he gave against him. And as he continued to give the facts, he made the case. He did, in fact, leave his sick wife. Maybe you have not read the whole thread. OK. If not, then read it. Maybe then your comments will make more sense. They make none now. You should know better.
Bruce H – It’s already passed 6:00 P.M. First Baptist Church Of Woodstock GA awaits you and me . You both are messing with my Sunday .
Jack,
Just got home from my church tonight. I went online and see where I can pull up the live messages. Looks like I will have to watch the “On Demand” from this morning, “The Fullness of Joy”. I will view it later tonight once everyone in the household are asleep. Thanks for the recommendation.
Bruce H – This morning GA ( aka Johnny Hunt ) “hit a homer ” in my estimation ; but , different strokes for different folks . In some ways I’m hard to please but Georgia will fight for what he believes . So too will Courtney McBath on T.V. in Norfolk Virginia , who although recorded has chrisma and some showmanship and knows life and the Bible in my humble opinion . I first saw him live in an SBC church . Hunt’s the place to be unless you live across the street from McBath – just please don’t count GA out because of a bad ” night on the mound “. Dave Miller who runs this Blog has been not only fair but responsible to a higher ethic than the subject of a Blog by allowing everyone to vent in whatever way they chose. So , don’t run away – and it’s obvious you haven’t.
Christiane – Whether your Scriptures are correct to one other person doesn’t concern me. I’m guessing you use the Catholic Bible which is fine for a humble man as myself ; but, for you to speak in such a way to put forth Christ’s desire to help people including Bruce H is commendable . I’ll bet you’ve been the only one to dissent at a Civic Meeting . I don’t have that background but I rewmember something about the Jews after leaving Egypt standing at the border and all but one wouldn’t cross over. Then one said something like – As for me I’ll —– . You fill it in He had Moxie as well . They’re waiting for me in GA.
sorry, JACK, I realize now that I did not put the references to sacred Scripture in brackets in order to distingush them from Ambrose’s words.
Christiane – I was in a rush to listen to GA and didn’t go back to make that distinction . If Santa Claus said that Jesus Christ is open and available for all people including those with problems then I would come away agreeing. I came away agreeing with you without dissecting or diagramming the sentence. Whoever you picked you were on target in my way of thinking; and, if you aren’t correct then a whole bunch of us , including me , are in trouble . I have an imitation Sheriffs badge with Buford Pusser’s name on it and a book by his daughter who mentions a former governor of Tennessee who was rumored to have sold pardons before he left office – buy not 200 pardons like the guy in Mississippi. Pusser was a country boy from Tennessee who took the Crooks on legally and in the Courts. I’m inspired by him and others and by people such as yourself who have the courage of their convictions just because they “believe” they’re Right. Heaven knows I don’t think as fast nor as accurately 100% of the time – but I try – and I have to go with what I’ve got. I always keep my legs crossed , or my fingers crossed , or wear a pair of .44s in a crossdraw in case I’m wrong – just kidding . I will do the research – just maybe not this year. I enjoyed reading you but I’m not going back into this . I sincerely hope Bruce H tuned in to GA because I think that is a super start – also with a country boy from Tennessee .
Item # 52 – Two big mistakes : Last sentence and the last word ” Tennessee ” should read ” North Carolina ” . The other mistake is that the book and badge are in the mail to me as we speak – I don’t already own them.
Would kinda like to hear everyone’s take on how this applies when a man molests his own daughter at age 5 and spends time in prison for it, and cannot be trusted, nor is there godly sorrow/repentance. I have not divorced him, and it has been 10 years since I had to remove him from our home. Would it not seem that a better man could raise his children? I speak from a neutral stance. I am not stating my intentions.
Callene,
If you have read any of this line of comments you may come to the conclusion that I would not be the best to respond, however, here is something to consider.
Have the church you attend approach him. If he is still not remorseful then bind him to his sin according to Matthew 18:15-20. That allows God do the punishment. If they conclude that he is not a believer and wishes to leave you, you have a choice to divorce.
Your daughter should be the one to determine if she wants to see her dad again under supervision. It should be her decision to do what ever she needs to do. If she refuses to see him that is fine too. Men are pigs and sometimes it should be left up to the child as they mature in the Lord.
Another man raising a 15 year old daughter would be difficult. I think it is your responsibility and if you choose to divorce and remarry, it should be for you and not your daughter. She is almost grown. The divorce would add about a year to your situation and I would recommend that the person you find, if you choose, should be a better grandfather.
Best to you.
Bruce H.,
You are right. You should not respond and the response you have given is very weak and without merit.
Callene,
For clarification:
1. Let the law take its course, then, let the church do its restroative or excommunication work. He has sinned and needs to be spiritually restored through repentance or removed through unrepentance.
2. Forgiveness is not optional and not a weak approach at all. Your daughter will have to come to that place and it may be face to face with her father under supervision. There are too many places in scripture that tells us of concequences of unforgiveness. Start with Matthew 6:14,15 ; Matthew 18:21-35
3. I have remarried and know that there is a difference between a biological father and a step-father. The love is different and I know that from experience. Good can come from another man, however, do not let your guard down from your responsibility.
“restorative”
I will be honest with you, Callene. I think one of the tragedies of what I consider to be a misinterpretation of Scripture has made someone like you question whether you should divorce a man who molests your daughter.
I think that under the teachings of Jesus, you have the freedom in Christ to divorce him on the basis of adultery (molestation implies a sexual infidelity) without sin.
In my mind, it also implies the right to remarry. I will be developing the biblical basis of this in my future posts, but that is where I stand.
There are few violations of the marriage covenant than the sexual abuse of a child. He broke the covenant and you are not bound by it any longer.
Callene,
Dave Miller has given you a biblical response. Keep your child away from the man who molested her. if God brings a real man into your life who knows the Christ and is taking up the cross to follow Him, then by all means allow God to give you back “some of the years the locusts have eaten.” The Scripture teaches that you are free to marry again, in the Lord, but protect your child by all means.
Now – Dave Miller & Bruce H & Callene , All together you are finding understanding with common sense and Scripture as guides . Doesn’t get any better than that .
As one who has been a professional counselor, who wrote a paper in graduate school on the issue of incest and pedophilia, and who had the responsibility for dealing with the problem in a Senior High School with a staff of 6 or more counselors, I must point out that there is no law in God’s kingdom for continuing in a relationship which exposes a child to such harm, such evil. Speaking from experience as a counselor who has known of the effects such abuse has on the personality of the child throughout the rest of their life, I must insist that the Lord’s teachings in the Old and New Testament can never be taken to countenance or allow for the perpetration of such wickedness. Surely, the spouse in the situation has every right to remarry. The great evils of this nature in our society are the result, at least in part, of the flood of pornography which empowers certain pathologies that are latent in fall sinners. The Supreme Court by loosing the standards on this issue must bear in part the responsibility for the great deluge of sufferings that this misery brings upon us. My sympathy to all who like Callene suffer, have suffered or will suffer from this vicious and enormous perversion.
A-Men James,
Well said and may Callene take heed to the soundness of your good words.